^ ®^^ REMARKS 

.B98 
Copy 1 



/v'.m[ 



HON. AfP.^"BUTLER, OF S. CAROLINA, 



ON THE PROPOSITION 



TO ADMIT CALIPOMIA AS A STATE INTO THE UNION, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 15, 1850. 



/^ 



WASHINGTON: 

PRIMTBD AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 
1850. 



A/ 



ADMISSION OF CALIFORNU AS A STATE. 



Thn pending question before tlie Senate being on the 
amendment of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] 
to instruct the Committee on Territories "to report a bill for 
the admission of the State of California, unconnected with 
any other subject"— 

Mr. BUTLER, who was entitled to the floor, 
rose and said: I did not rise yesterday for the pur- 

fose of making a speech of any great length, and 
shall confine my remarks this morning to very 
narrow limits. I rose yesterday with the view of 
indicating the course which I wished this subject 
to take, and I was very happy when the Senator 
from Missouri offered his amendment. I did not 
wish those subjects connected with California to 
be disconnected with the discussion of the other 
subjects embraced in the resolutions of the honor- 
able Senator from Kentucky. We all have duties 
to perform — very grave duties to perform; and I 
should be very sorry to see any part of this sub- 
ject referred to any committee at all, until every 
Senator on this floor, if he chooses to do so, has 
given his views; so that tlje committee hereafter 
may by possibility frame such a plan as will result 
in the adjustment of this agitating question. I say 
" by possibility," sir. That word implies at once 
my apprehension and fears for the result of events. 
That result will depend altogether on the course 
and determination of the North. That section has 
the power to solve and fulfill the possibility which 
now exists of settling this fearful question. 

Mr. President, we all see that there is a storm 
ahead of us; indeed, we have already fell some of 
its hazardous agitations. Under such circumstan- 
ces, it seems to me that every one on board, how- 
ever humble, should be allowed to make such 
suggestions as may save the vessel from ap- 
prehended shipwreck. After all shall have given 
their views, the course and policy to be pursued 
will be developed. The juncture of ou; affairs 
cannot be met but by a full survey of all the con- 
sequences which may grow out of it. It. is the 
part of wisdom to seize upon the advantages of 
transient opportunity. One good thought, one 
happy suggestion at the right time, is worth all the 
splendid generalities that arc beyond the influence 
of an actual occasion. 

Events have moved on with a dangerous velocity, 
and opportunities for settling this question have 
been allowed to pass that will never return. 
Whilst we are approaching rapids and shoals — 
perhaps cataracts — it will be in vain to look back 
at the havens of safety which we have passed, and 



to which we can have no return. By keeping 
California connected with other subjects with 
which it is indissolubly associated, we may retain 
a control over this subject that may presei^t an 
opportunity, perhaps the last opportunity, to settle 
it. Once part with it, by admitting California at 
once, it may be fatal, because irrevocable. 

I must confess, Mr. President, that I was sur- 
prised to see a disposition manifested from so im- 
posing a source to give California preference in the 
discussion, and to separate her fate from that of 
others, in which it ought to be involved. It cer- 
tainly is so involved in the resolutions of the hon- 
orable Senator from Kentucky. And why take it 
out of them and give it a separate consideration, I 
cannot see. It may be thought that it is the 
strongest question for the opponents of the South, 
and therefore that it can be used with success as a 
pioneer. On the other hand, it may be looked on 
as a pioneer of invasion — and I am sure it will be 
so regarded — and other parties will take a more 
certain refuge in the increased strength which it 
can inapart. 

We all should speak candidly upon this subject. 
I intend to deliver myself — and f hope I always 
may — without passion or prejudice. Indeed, at 
this juncture of our affairs, they would be dan- 
gerous counsellors. If we can relieve ourselves 
from the difficulties that surround us, it must be by 
calm temper and firm resolution, with a determi- 
nation, as far as we can, to do right. I know that 
I cannot free my mind altogether from the influ- 
ences which sectional duties impose upon me. I 
have duties to perform to one section of this Union 
which require me to discharge them in a spirit of 
firmness and, I hope, fairness. Perhaps I cannot 
go as far as the honorable Senator from Kentucky 
e.xpressed himself yesterday evening willing to do. 
My desire is to save the Union, if 1 can do it by 
saving the rigiits and honor of the Slate which I 
represent. One was made to protect the other; 
and, when that office shall be abandoned, the 
Union, or those who wield its influence, is made to 
assume the position of an antagonist, and to pre- 
sent considerations involving a painful alternative; 
an alternative of submission to an acknowledged 
power under a sacred name, or that of self respect 
and self-preservation in the Slates whose rights are 
threatened. These alternatives in llicir varioua 
aspects, both past and future, excite no doubt very 
diff-irent feelings. Feeling that I am identified 
with the weaker but the wronged party, it may 
not be surprising ihat I should partake of the sen- 



timents or sympathies of those who may seem to 
take an adversary position. 

When, the other day, the Senator from Ken- 
lucky said he knew no South in his allegiance, and 
again repeated there was no allegiance in his mind [ 
to the South, I was prepared to liear him say, | 
" nor to the North, nor to the West, nor to the 
East, but to the Union;'' and with such a declara- 
tion I might have been satisfied; buttosingleout the 
South as not claimina: his allegiance gave me pain. 

Mr. CLAY. I think I did say die North. I 
do not know that I went all around the dit^erent | 
points of the compass. That is what I meant, I 
however, if 1 did not use the expression. I meant j 
then, and I mean it now, that I owe no allegiance j 
to any one section — East, North, West, or South, j 
And I know, I repeat, of but two sovereignties to j 
whom I owe allegiance — the one the Union, and 
the other my own State. That is what I meant. 

Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman regards his 
first allegiance to the Union, and then to Kentucky. 
I may, perhaps, regard my relations to the South 
somewhat different fiom those of the lionorable 
Senator from Kentucky. I somewhat reverse the 
order in which he cliooSes to speak of allegiance. 
My allegiance is first to South Carolina, and 
through South Carolina to the Union. I know 
no other Union than which has been recognized by 
the State of South Carolina. I know of no other 
allegiance but my allegiance to South Carolina. 
My allegiance to the Union is through South Car- 
olina. These dilferent views may lead our minds ' 
to run through difTerent channels. As being iden- 
tified with the past glories of the Union, he may I 
well look upon it with the pious veneration of a ! 
child, and he may be prepared to look upon the 
partial dispensations of a parent with feelings of 
forgiveness — especially so long as he may be re- 
ffarded as one of her favorites in the domestic fam- 
ily circle. 

Whilst I love those who have a common interest 
with me — who are indissolubly involved in a com- I 
mon destiny — i have no aversion to this Union as 
it was created. When I left my constituents, there 
was no deliberate design among them that it should 
be dissolved. Such an act had not been looked to 
as a matter of policy or purpose. It is an event 
depending on consequences over which the minor- 
ity had no control. Whether, seeing these con- 1! 
sequences, they would have consented to the form- !l 
ation of the Union, I cannot tell; but its dissolution j! 
after it has been formed, presents a different ques- |l 
tion, and one of the gravest solicitude. Under the I 
feeling inspired by such a solicitude, it wns natural 
that the distinguished Senator should have pre- L 
sented himself in this crisis as a mediator; it was ' 
an office well worthy of his reputation. But I am !' 
not mistaken in saying that it isa mediation which j 
must fail, if it cannot present anything better than ji 
the tor'Jiso/a compromise contained in the different | 
resolutions whi( h he has offered. Cnmpmmise ! i 
It« name is frailty — its consequences treachery — 11 
giving the stronger party the power to u.se it as an I! 
instrument, and ihrow it away at its pleasure. The I 
compromises that have been offered ftill t;\r short of [ 
the occasion. They neither satisfy the present, nor l! 
offer security for the future. The stronger power '• 
don't want them, and the weaker power, in honor', II 
cannot accept them. The South might be satisfied :l 
with an adjustment such as would restore confi- {J 
dence, and give her perfect security by something i' 



more than the decision of a tempted majority. It 
is not for the South to propose compromises. She 
cannot and ought not. It is not for the South, in 
my opinion, to settle this question. If I had my 
way, I would commit them to a committee of 
northern men exclusively, to see what would be 
j the terms upon which they would settle it. I 
know, sir, that this thing of admitting States into 
the Union, as California is likely to be admitted, 
will aggravate very much the dissensions which 
exist in different portions of this Union. Califor- 
nia might have been placed in a condition in which 
she could have claimed admission into the Union, 
with all the provisions now contained in her con- 
stitution. Some of her friends now were her real 
enemies, and denounced her most. She may not 
have been forced to assume a position unfavorable 
to her success, and even dangerous in its conse- 
quencies to the safety of the republic. 

Under the circumstances which are connected 
with her claim for admission — and they are full of 
historical interest — I cannot consent, sir, to her 
coming into the Confederacy at this time. Such 
an event will be adopting the acts of usurpation, 
and violating all the securities of usage and prece- 
dent. In saying that the people of California have 
made to themselves a government by usurpation, 
I associate nothing offensive with the word. I use 
the word usurpation in its stiict legal sense, and I 
would not wish to be understood as referring to 
any of the parties concerned, or to California, with 
any feelings of hostility, or with any purpose to 
throw factious obstacles in the way. 

But, Mr. President, if the act of forming a gov- 
ernment in California without the consent of Con- 
gress previously obtained, or by implication, ob- 
tained. under the sanction of a territorial government, 
is not a usurpation, I have read the Constitution 
in vain, and tlo not understand its import. This 
power in the Constitution is expressed in a very 
few words: 

" New Stiites may be admitted by the Congress into tbis 
Union ; hut no new States shall be formed ororected witliin 
the juiisdiclion olaiiy other Slate, ni)r any State be formed 
by tlie junction of two or more States, or parts of States, 
without the consent of the Legislatures of the States con- 
cerned, as well as of the Congress." 

There is not a word in the Constitution with 
regard to the time when Congress shall give her 
consent, whether before or after. The consent 
given here evidently is exactly that kind of consent 
which Congress ought to give for the erection of a 
State anywhere. 

By way of illustration of the proposition I have 
rather indicated than laid down with any degree 
of precision, I will make a supposition: Suppose 
Georgia — and I speak of that State by way of 
illustration, as she is one of the largest of the 
States of the South — should divide her State into 
East and West Georgia, and at the next session 
of Congress should send here two additional 
Senators and ,three or four additional Represent- 
atives, and ask to be admitted into this Union, 
because she had exercised the power which they 
have called selfgovernment here so often — that 
great inherent power — should knock at our door, 
and state that policy required that we should 
admit that State formed wihin her limits into this 
Union. What would be the reply, sir ? There- 
ply would be, " You have done the act by usurpa- 
tion, by a palpable violation of the Consli'ution, 
which requires tha consent of Congress." Ah ! 



" the consent of Congress !" But cannot the con - 
sent of Consrress be given now as well as it could 
have been given antecedently? Why, sir, I admit 
that it would be perfectly competent for Congress 
to waive the objection and adopt the usurpation. 
I have no doubt that Congress might do that, 
under any circumstances. They might waive all 
objection to these States coming into the Union, by 
adopting the act of usurpation. This is not an un- 
usual principle in legal proceedings. In the case of 
the Me.xican treaty, after the power of the agent or 
the ambassador had been revoked by the Govern- 
ment, after he had formed a treaty in palpable 
violation of his instructions, we waived the objec- 
tions, and by retrospective contemplation, we 
adopted his act and made it our own. 

I hold that no p^ple have a right to form them- 
selves into a State without the consent of Congress, 
expressly or by implication given. I say that it 
is a usurpation of the power of Congress over this 
subject. That has been my proposition, and the 
proposition I intend to maintain if I can. But, 
before doing that, I will go somewhat into detail, 
to show that California has assumed her piesent 
position towards the Federal Government in vio- 
lation of all the securities of precedent, all the se- 
curities of usage. There is nothing like it in'the 
history of the Territories or States of the Union — 
nothing like it. 

In the first place, the people of California, by 
their convention, have appropriated not only a 
Territory to themselves, but they have assigned 
boundaries,withouteverhavingconsulted Congress 
one way oranother. Is thereanysuchinstanceto be 
found in the history of any Territorial Government 
or any State Government in the United States.? I 
challenge gentlemen to find a parallel or a prece- 
dent of the kind. Now let me not be told that 
this thing of boundary is a matter of no essential 
consequence. The boundary ! Why, the bound- 
aries of a commonwealth, sir, are, of all others, in a 
hieh political sense, matters ofpubUcijuris — matters 
with which Congress slfould deal; for they are such 
as affect deeply the great interest of other comniu- 
nities. And when any people undertake to assign 
boundaries to themselves — to assign to themselves 
six hundred miles, up and down upon the Pacific 
coast, without having consulted those who are the 
proprietors, so far as there was any public domain 
— without having consulted those who had vested in 
them the sovereign dominion, the sovereign j'::ris- 
diction over the country ceded by treaty — it is ta- 
king a very important privilige from Congress, and 
arrogating to themselves a power at war with the 
interests and rights of other communities. 

Sir, I ask the question, as 1 have a right to ask 
it, emphatically, have the people of California con- 
formed to the obligations of the treaty with Mexico, 
so far as regards the qualifications of voters .' Who 
voted .' Who are those twelve or thirteen thousand 
voters.' Were they free white men ? Were they 
Mexicans of Spanish blood ? Were they such 
Mexicans as were recognized as capable of becom- 
ing citizens under the terms of the treaty .' Why, 
sir, the President has not even condescended to 
give us any infi)rmation upon that subject at all. 
Who constituted this Government? From what 
clas.s of voters did this government emanate? Am 
I to be told that Congress has no jurisdiction over 
a subject of this kind? There is no instance of a 
Territorial Government in the organization of 



which Congre.ss did not prescribe or define the 
qualifications of voters. There isanoiher violation, 
Mr. President. I know instances will be quoted 
in which States havebcen admitted into this Union, 
where tiie people did not have the previous as- 
sent of Congress to assemble in convention for the 
t| formation of a constitution; but I will answer for 
}i it that they are not similar cases. 
jt There i.^ another particular in which California 
]: has violated the usage. No State in this Union 
t] has come into it without Congress having previ- 
jl ously taken a census of its inhabitants. That was 
I done in Michigan, in Iowa, in Wisconsin, in Flor- 
j ida, and in all the other States. This has been the 
j uniform usage and precedent, so far as regards the 
I admission of other States. I am told, however, 
I that Iowa and Florida came into this Union by 
\ forming conventions without the previous leave of 
! Congress. Iowa did hold a convention, and of- 
I fered a constitution here, claiming certain bound- 
aries, which Congress denied. She was sent 
I back, and returned, having been assigned different 
i Ijoundaries, and then she came into the Union 
with new boundaries. And therefore I think it 
may be said that Congress had given its consent 
by implication for the formation of a constitution 
and State Government. I say it was not only im- 
plied, but strongly implied, when "the boundaries 
were given her, that she had the power to do so. 
So far as regards Wisconsin, the same remark 
! may be made. Congress gave her the right to 
\ have two members. That recognition of the right 
j to have two member^ was such a recognition as to 
give the previous consent of Congress that she 
I might form a constitution, and might then apply 
j for admission into this Union as one of the sover- 
eign States. Now, sir, with regard to the States 
I of Iowa and Florida: Florida had made applica- 
!j cation for years, four or five years, when Iowa 
!i came forward, and they came in pari passu — the 
j one as a slave State, and the other as a free State. 
They came in at the same time, and that, sir, by 
i consent, and, as I have strong reason to believe, 
! by the previous or implied assent of Congress that 
j they should form constitutions and come into the 
1 Union under their sanction. The same remark 
M may be made with regard to Michigan. I know 
![ she did form and claim boundaries — not allowed to 
! her, by-the-by — and she did form a constitution. 
i But did Michigan form a constitution or have any 
I convention, excepting when she was under territo- 
rial relations to this Government? Michigan was 
1 governed by the United States through the agency 
I of Congress; and if she assembled a convention, it 
was under the implication at the time that Con- 
gress had giyen her the power of attorney to de- 
cide upon the time when she should come into the 
Union. 1 say, then, it was an implied consent in 
the case of Michigan. 

But, so far as regards California, not a single 
one of these coincidences exists. She comes here 
without having her boundaries fixed, without 
qualifications of voters being defined, without hav- 
ing any census, and, as I am very much inclined 
to think, under a suggestive influence from the 
Executive and his Cabinet to evade the responsi- 
i bility of meeting this question as it should have 
been met, and at the time when it could have been 
met, and at the time that it might have been set- 
tled satisfactorily to all parties. Sir, the admisj- 
sion of California will put it farther beyond settle- 



6 



ment, and every step we take we are approaching 
a precipice. Wlien this question first arose it 
could have been very easily adjusted by having 
the ordinary territorial governments, without any 
restriction whatever. They might have excluded 
slavery or not, as they thought proper, when 
they had matured themselves into the condition of 
States. But, to evade this Wilmot proviso, the 
people were left in a state of anarchy; and, under 
an operation of causes worse than the Wilmot 
proviso, they are claiming privileges now, by usurp- 
ation, to which they are not entitled. Is it not 
a usurpation in any point of view in which we can 
regard it.' Why, sir, in whom was vested a 
sovereignty over the citizens and the inhabitants 
under the treaty of California? In the United 
States. And I think the honorable Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Davis] the other day demon- 
strated that; and he put the proposition in so strong 
a point of view that I think it could not be misun- 
derstood; and the Senator from Georgia has left 
no ground for others to occupy. I venture to say 
that there are but very few individuals upon this 
floor who will contend, before any tribunal that 
could take cognizance of the subject, that a sover- 
eignty was not vested in the United States, to be 
exerted through the agency of their representatives 
in Congress. 

Th'^ right claimed under the doctrine of self-gov- 
ernment is extra-constitutional, and has no sanc- 
tion for its exercise. When analyzed, it is a right 
to dispen.«e with the prescriptions of the Constitu- 
tion, and to use a power in derogation of the rights 
of the States of this Union, in whom was vested 
the high sovereignty and eminent domain. 

I have heard it so often asserted that the people 
have a right to self-government, that I am inclined 
to think gentlemen conclude th it the authority of 
Congress is excluded. But such a proposition 
would sanction what I would regard the doctrine 
of self-appropriation. But if my proposition be 
true, California has no right, under her usurpation, 
to come here and claim to be admitted, unless we 
waive and adopt such acts of usurpation. I will 
not say that Congress may not make a precedent 
to subserve present interests, and forward the 
views of political propagandists; but, in doing so, 
they recognize the dangerous power of usurpation 
— one which may be well-received when it re- 
dounds to the advantage of a majority, but one 
which never will be allowed to the claims of a mi- 
nority. If southern slaveholders had done the 
same thing, and had not prohibited slavery in Cali- 
fornia in any constitution which they might have 
piesented, their acts would have been denounced 
and their proffered constitution rejected. Tiiere is 
a wonderful difference between the dictation of the 
strong and the suggestions of the weak. The 
course pursued in California, if recognized and 
adopted here, will be a precedent of mischief and 
danger to the security of the people of this coun- 
try. Why, upon the same doctrine, you may 
have a dozen States applying next year to come 
in, upon the ground that they have formed consti- 
tutions under the sanction of this precedent: aye, 
Minnesota; but Minnesota has now a Territorial 
Government — Nebraska is a recognized Territory. 
Deseret, New Mexico, and two or three States in 
Texas may come here by their delegations, with 
constitutions in their liands, and knock at your 
door for admission, and claim to do so, without 



having consulted Congress, under the very prece- 
dent you are about to establish. 

I have heard , sir, of the danger of the plan of the 
English power of making peers when they wanted 
votes. The power of issuing patents of nobility 
by royal prerogative has been rarely abused in 
England; it has often been dreaded, and at some 
times not resisted: a ministry Avanting power will 
always be under strong temptation to resort to it, 
and in some instances have abused it to the preju- 
dice of public liberty. 

The power now claimed of making new States 
under the spontaneous action of the people of a 
teiritory is foreign to the Constitution; but when 
it is recollected tiiat this power must be under the 
influence of Executive suggestion — indeed, under 
the moulding influence of one^f the departments of 
this Government that must always be under a 
strong influence to give itself strength or historical 
popularity, or even ephemeral popularity — it is time 
we should look to consequences. I do not say 
that the present Executive and his Cabinet have 
been influenced by such considerations. I have 
no reason to suppose so. But I ask, who may not 
be tempted to take advantage of them hereafter.' 
He that makes a precedent of to-day ought to look 
to' its consequences in the history of tomorrow. 
I wish that it was in the power of to-day to see the 
consequences of to-morrow. I hope I may say 
that I plant myself upon principle; 1 am sure I act 
from no personal resentment or objections. I cer- 
tainly can have no personal motive to reject the 
constitution of California, or to oppose those who 
came here under its authority. I do not know the 
Representatives; and my knowledge of the Sena- 
tors is entirely prepossessing — perhaps more than 
that, if I weie to yield to mere personal considera- 
tions. One of the Senators elect is from my own 
State; and it must be conceded that he is a gentle- 
man of enterprise and ability, and the trust re- 
posed in him is a worthy commentary from those 
who have sent him here. The other gentleman is 
not unknown to our legistative history, and has a 
< lAim on our favorable consideration. Indeed, I 
have no cause to distrust them, individually, in any 
of our controversies On the contrary, I would 
trust them to-morrow, whilst I would not trust to 
the precedent that would give their successors 
power hereafter. 

A majority is rarely indifferent to the counsels 
of expediency; and when personal influence is 
brought in as a powerful auxiliary, expediency 
usually prevails. I see its influence now, and I 
see those urging this measure that once looked 
upon California with scorn. I have always re- 
garded her as requiring the moulding influ<jnce of 
a territorial government more than any other; and 
I am consistent in saying now that she has'a right 
to no other; and to submit to any other would be 
to submit to the Wilmot proviso, under its most 
dangerous sanctions — under sanctions that make 
a precedent dangerous and unparalleled in the 
history of the country, and one which a majority 
alone can resist, and which a minority is called on 
to submit to in violation of usage, precedent, and 
constitutional obligation. Should these measures 
go on, they must have a result— a result for which 
I cannot answer so far as it regards the southern 
States. The nesv confederates that will come into 
the Confederacy may have southern afiinities, and 
may never be willing to oppose the justice of con- 



stitutional prescription. But they cannot control 
the eluments of power of wliicl* they constitute a 
part. They will go to swell a majority, evuo 
now, without veto or control, and, almost from 
necessity, will have to act with it. And when I 
see that the constituents of that majority will be 
a combination of interests to make war upon south- 
ern institutions, I would not be a faithful sentinel 
were I not to raise my voice. What influence it 
may exert I cannot tell. The southern Slates 
have their rights, and, if they are not degenerate, 
they will maintain them. They avow — and will, 
I think, put everything to hazard to maintain — 
the doctrine of equality. Yes, sir, equality — I 
repeat it, equality. That is a sentiment not de- 
pending on the cold definition of selfish logic. 
The southern people wish to have an opportunity, 
under the obligations of honor, to engage as equals 
in ali wars, in all struggles for national aggran- 
dizement, and to believe that, in eligibility, they 
are not to be looked upon as inferiors to other 
aspirants, and that they have the same rights now 
as they had when their ancestors formed the Con- 
stitution. 

They never can acquiesce in the doctrine which 
a northern majority is attempting to force upon 
them — that in all future acquisitions of territory, 
as well as that which has been acquired, they are 
to be excluded under any implication that they are 
not equally worthy with those who assume a su- 
periority over them. If there should be a war, 
they wish to have a share in its hazards and its 
triumphs. But, under the doctrines that have been 
avowed, how can they take commissions, or enlist 
as soldiers, to carry on a war for their degradation 
and disfranchisement? 



DiflTerent regiments are engaged. The one from 
the South takes the front, and has its ranks liiinned 
by the intrepidity of its movements; the fuller 
ranks of its northern associate claims all the 
honors, so far as they can be conferred by the 
Federal Government. All the efforts in Congress 
to prohibit slavery from the Mexican territories 
are made to establish a doctrine — a doctrine under 
which southern institutions must not only crumble, 
but under which southern men must be made to 
understand, that hereafter they hold their fran- 
chises by sufferance, and that, so far as it regards 
the high Federal honors, they are to be excluded, 
unless they acquiesce in northern affinities, and, 
indeed, unless they acknowledge northern doc- 
trines, and seek preferment through northern in- 
fluence. Can such a Government last? If it can, 
it must be under the influence of an irresponsible 
despotism, sustained by popular professions and 
the yielding facility of ephemeral demagogues. 
Degeneracy and desertion may be the elements of 
such results. That calculation has been made 
from high quarters — can I suppose it will not be 
refuted ? Justice may obviate the anticipated re- 
sults to which I have alluded, and I now close with 
this remark: Gentlemen of the majority, you may 
presume too much on the name of the Union; you 
have it in your power to preserve it, and if it is 
destroyed, it will be by a blind temerity or by self- 
ish design. I thought I foresaw, and more than 
once have said, that these acquisitions of territory 
would bring with them the elements of discord, to 
put in jeopardy this Union. Our duty now is to 
look to the future, and not to the past, and the fu- 
ture developments of the country will make an 
eventful history. 



LS"^ OP CONGRESS 

017 167 269 7 "^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 167 269 7 



